(17-08-2012 01:34 PM)Erxomai Wrote: Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams is an incredible film on the subject. I actually got a bit emotional watching it and thinking of our artistic ancestors.

Yes! Wasn't that brilliant?!!
I couldn't believe I was seeing work done so long ago - it was a very emotional experience.
Herzog filmed it in 3D but my old art cinema wasn't equipped, so I only got to see the regular version. I need to rent it if it's on DVD -I'll probably buy it. Did you get to see it in the theater, Erx? 3D or regular version?

Yes - -El Castillo cave in Spain - - Those were the ones which are really considered to possibly have been made by Neanderthal because of so much nearby evidence. I only posted the Chauvet cave because once you see Cave Of Forgotten Dreams... you just don't forget those images. It's quite haunting.

It's streaming on Netflix. I didn't know there was a 3D version. That would be pretty cool to see sometime.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My

(17-08-2012 01:14 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote: [...]the fact that the ice age of 30,000 years ago would have been too cold for very large cold-blooded creatures like dinosaurs to survive.

Ummm... the scientific communis opinio on the concept that dinos were cold-blooded is passé. At least most airborne dinos and fast moving earth-bound raptors are now considered to have been warm-blooded, as well as feathered.

Imagine a Jurassic landscape with gargantuan turkeys and ostriches running around and you've got a picture...

However, it is a popular myth that mammoths and woolly rhinos, a.o., lived and survived permanently in arctic ice age conditions. They didn't. Which is why we found the bones of the ones that tried/had to and, obviously, failed in areas where there were arctic conditions. Because they died there.
99% of mammoths, woolly rhinos, etc., lived in the tundra, not the taiga, in temperate, forested zones. Not in permanent snow and ice.

Warm-blooded, feathered dinos – in their far more distant eras – could therefore very well also have lived in temperate zones, even while ice ages were raging elsewhere (they weren't BTW).

RE: Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived

I can't see ancient humans living with dinosaurs, because the raptors at the very least had to be smart. Now with our assault weapons, we could take on dinos. Back then with sticks and rocks or maybe spears and arrows, I just don't see it. Our modern birds are highly intelligent and they have small brains. I would be willing to bet that many of the predators back then were at least the equivalent to our ancestors intelligence, however they had built in weapons. My opinion is we should be extinct if we co-existed with dinosaurs.

I know that some Christians have used these stones here to say that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Archeologists dismiss these readily, stating they must be hoaxes because humans and dinosaus did not coexist, but I don't think it's sufficient to claim a hoax without support, such as dating methods.
Similar for the Cambodian temple that depicts an apparent Stegosaurus ( http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur...eros-hoax/ ). Archeologists ridicule the accuracy of the depiction of a Stegosaurus as if made by a child in kindergarten & then comparing interpretation of the image as if staring at clouds in the sky and seeing shapes, rather than using the basis of science as a disproval... I find the claim that the spinal plates as just clouds in the background to be silly too. Such dismissiveness only encourages creationists to say, "ah ha, see, they discredit archeologists that support creationism and run their reputations through the mud and shun them and ridicule them which only proves that archeologists are trying to hide evidence that the arrogant majority of brain washed archeologists are afraid some evidence may shake their foundations of evolutionism!" ...To me, there is a sizable group of scientific types out there that have the "religion" of scientific theories -- true scientists admit that science is "best evidence for now" and is therefore an evolving "truth" --- but some scientists are so invested in theories they've signed on to, that they do readily squash anything that may challenge it. This reminds me so much of the old Catholic church that would execute "heretics" that would dare challenge the churh's establised "truth."
Scientists need to not laugh at them, and just lay out evidence without ridicule. Facts prevail. And if you don't have facts, don't be childish, just state you don't have absolute evidence, but that there is substantial evidence to state evolutionary timelines and no established evidence to state the supposed depictions of dinosaurs with humans... You will not win creationists over by slamming the door of logic in their face.

There are other depictions out there, like of a Pterodactyl that I cannot find today.. sorry..
There's a rock art from Lake Superior Provincial Park that shows something that looks like a dinosaur, perhaps a Stagosaurus as well : http://rockartblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/...erior.html

..One may even argue that there must be SOME reason why so many cultures have "dragon" stories and depictions, well before cultures started exchanging with one another. I also find it interesting that some mideval European artwork of knights or saints killing dragons have the dragons depicted as small, perhaps 6 to 10 foot long creatures, and this was long before archeology and the records of fossil collecting, and yet we know that most dinosaurs were about 9 feet long. If I were to depict myself slaying a troublesome dragon, I'd make the thing as we'd depict it these days, as big as a house! Why make it about as small as yourself and your horse? Such paintings : http://www.imperialteutonicorder.com/id84.html

Science isn't absolute, but most Atheists mistakenly think it is, as if science is static and unwaivering. Quoting a book/scientist as if it is proof comes off as a form or religion, just as some religious type throwing out archeological evidence supporting his biblical history... Science evolves, "accepted" scientific facts do change and there are many cases of them changing. It's that arrogance (both of religious types and scientists) that makes them to be fools when a new fact arrives and forces the community to change to a newly accepted fact that contradicts the old...

After all, there have been some discoveries in recent decades of "living dinosaurs" that had prior been long-stated by archeologists as "extinct millions of years ago." Megalania was said to be extinct 1.8 million yeas ago, then the Komodo Dragon was discovered in 1910. Coelecanth was said to have been extinct over 70 millions of years ago, and then one was caught live off South Africa in 1938.

RE: Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived

> "My opinion is we should be extinct if we co-existed with dinosaurs."
LOL, but in truth, think of evolution: If we branched off from apes/monkeys, they could easily kill us!! If I throw YOU as a modern human into a jungle at night, you'll have a hard time surviving for years... The monkeys would totally kick your butt (chimps, much smaller than you, have 3 times the strength!).... I know people will argue that we slowly evolved and banded in groups for protection... perhaps... but so do monkeys and apes... if a tribe of them come up against your tribe, you're dead. Sure, we have weapons NOW, but think of the only 1000-year evolving monkey-men ; these men would have less strength and speed, less hair for protection, less thick skin, smaller canines, etc. and not have weapons yet... So you have thousands of years to evolve as a further-weakening species without the intelligence yet to make weapons and home structures to protect yourself. Just doesn't make much sense...

RE: Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived

(10-11-2012 10:34 PM)ericl Wrote: > "My opinion is we should be extinct if we co-existed with dinosaurs."
LOL, but in truth, think of evolution: If we branched off from apes/monkeys, they could easily kill us!! If I throw YOU as a modern human into a jungle at night, you'll have a hard time surviving for years... The monkeys would totally kick your butt (chimps, much smaller than you, have 3 times the strength!).... I know people will argue that we slowly evolved and banded in groups for protection... perhaps... but so do monkeys and apes... if a tribe of them come up against your tribe, you're dead. Sure, we have weapons NOW, but think of the only 1000-year evolving monkey-men ; these men would have less strength and speed, less hair for protection, less thick skin, smaller canines, etc. and not have weapons yet... So you have thousands of years to evolve as a further-weakening species without the intelligence yet to make weapons and home structures to protect yourself. Just doesn't make much sense...

You are over-simplifying human evolution and compressing the time scale. Early human ancestors were ape-like, not human-like.

As for the Ica stones, they have been shown to be fake. I suggest you look at more references.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.